Manual focusing doesn't mean a camera doesn't work, only that it doesn't rely on automation. Even modern lenses come with focus rings. In other words, they not only just fit but also can be used for exposures.

I like that my oldest pre-Ai lenses work with the D3xxx, D5xxx, and the D7500. The "however" above may refer, in part, to the terribly dim readout in the OVF when used in bright light. As stated earlier, the low price of used D3000 models is most likely due to their age and supply vs demand, as with most anything.

I am sure most readers know this is already in place, voluntarily so far, using a location tracker supplied by the insurance company if you opt in. I wonder when they will no longer need to send you a device if you give permission to use your car's built-in tracker. Eventually, some states will not require a driver's permission. (In SC, not having proof of insurance can be worse than driving without a current registration or license.) For over thirty years I assumed grocery stores might sell customers' buying habits to medical insurance companies, and that some medical labs might supply specimens for DNA screening for the same purpose. Why not? HIPAA is ignored routinely. It may be only a matter of time before some whistle blower speaks up. There has already been a tradition of using borrowers' genetic histories in the real-estate market long before DNA sequencing became so accessible: https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/what-is-redlining/

I didn't read all the posts, so please don't read this one if you object when someone repeats something covered. Since you referred to film, when you use B/W film and develop it yourself, you could adjust the ASA to suit your needs, then develop accordingly. With Kodak films, I sometimes sometimes used ASA 400 Tri-X at ASA 1600 or 3200 and Plus-X, standard of 125, at ASA 25. Color films were usually processed commercially according to strict standard, forcing users to calibrate their meters, or at least shoot at the recommended ASA. My point is films were made to give acceptable results at a particular sensitivity to meet market needs, though you could deviate. Modern Photography found Tri-X to work best at ASA 50, but since it worked acceptably well at ASA 400, it was sold as a relatively high speed film for that rating. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that some sensors would work incredibly well at much lower ISO ratings than 100, but a camera might not sell well if its based ISO was rated at 20.

Objectively speaking, were the Fujifilm and D5 cameras made around the same time, that is, have there been advances in sensor technology over time that give the Fujifilm greater DR than the D5 despite its APS-C size? Was the DR for the two cameras measured at the same time with the same materials and methods? I am not curious, personally, but without knowing more, comparing specifications is not always conclusive or meaningful.

Thanks very much for sharing since I missed the earlier post.

I concur. I am also a hobbyist and not even a good one. Paul was alluding to the problems a CPL can bring, especially if the desired benefit can be done in post. I use a CPL at times to manage reflections or when I am not likely to get to post before I want to send or save the photo. But for all things tint or hue related, PP is a better way to go since the original capture is unaffected. I use color filters only with a monochrome camera or B/W film. To Rab-Eye, I would suggest settling on a PP application and practicing a workflow. It can be a challenge if your time is better spent doing more meaningful things based on your calling and other talents.

Here is an idea: let's label people by the equipment they are carrying at the moment! Camera lovers with big lens lockers caught using a phone camera, hopefully by no one who recognizes them, can still feel good about themselves while walking about among the commoners. They know they can never be rightly called a Real Snapshooter.

You need to watch "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". I think it was produced by Illustra Media. This is the video I would have made in 1975 when I first studied molecular biology if I had the talent. Unfortunately, even as a photographer and with some experience in television, I have no skills in animation. You should watch it twice or more until it sinks in. It will change how you think about intelligent design.

God created us with the ability to choose evil or good. This is clearly stated in the bible. If you have a problem with that you can always ask him why it is that way. But, be both patient and persistent. If you are honest in desiring to know him he will answer. The problem is that a lot of people ultimately to not want to know and prefer their own way. If they do seek, they put God on a timer, so to speak. If he doesn't answer in the time allotted they can then claim he must not exist. His ways are not our ways. He does not belong in any box we make even though many people, even well meaning ones, try to mold him to fit their preferences. But try not to to blame God for man's errors. If you prefer not to have free will, you can always try living in a country where you are ordered what to think or otherwise go to prison, or worse. I don't wish this, of course, but it does illustrate one benefit when a people create and maintain a nation based on protecting man's God-given rights. Also, do not assume the believers share the type of personality that prefers 100% of the time to be subject to an all-powerful master or a certain set of rules. We are human, too! Even the best of kids misbehave. They just know enough to ask for forgiveness. Yes, the churches are full of hypocrites, but they are there because they know it and are trying to live a life guided by God's word. They tried all else and are finally "reading the manual".

Having the capability to understand some basics about the chemistry and physics behind fire does not preclude the possibility of an intelligent designer and creator. It only means that we are endowed with brains. It reminds me of my introduction to molecular biology and my immediate reaction to the complexity of polymerases, transcription, and process and all the components involved with the translation from the language of DNA to the protein language. Until that time I had accepted evolution as the explanation for how all life and how the tremendous variety of species came about. After all, Moses' synopsis of the history of today's world and its life is remarkably similar to how science describes the evolution of life. That's pretty good for a Hebrew orphan raised in ancient Egypt. Darwin was not aware in the slightest of the actual mechanisms required for evolution as the explanation for life. It fails to address the problem of irreducible complexity when applied to each and every sub-cellular mechanism. He did not attempt to explain away a creator, only that a creator was not directly responsible for the ultimate variety in life forms. Dawkins, on the other hand, struggled to come up with fanciful rationalizations to explain life without a designer. He has good reason, as do many others, to fear that there may be a creator who desires us to live as intended. It is often asked, even in an earlier post, why is there so much pain and evil in the world? Nearly all suffering is the result of greed and hatred by men in direct and intentional opposition to God's laws, yet those who pretend to know more then any imagined god blame him instead. The remainder of suffering from natural causes are opportunities for man to help others, as God has also ordained, but we only rarely answer this call and again blame him. We tend to give ourselves full credit for our health, wealth, and imagined safety and quietly ignore, if not openly exploit the weaker among us. As for me, I am glad for the evolution of cameras and for their intelligent designers and creators. I can hear CHG_CANON now: "And on the sixth day, we created the MILC."

One theory I read in a book on cosmology described the first fraction of a second in the current universe. It stated that all matter in the beginning was in the form of photons which then immediately evolved into the all the other classes of particles. It struck me that Moses must have been inspired when he wrote the words of Genesis 1:3. If it's true, most hoggers would agree it was a pretty good choice.

When will Samsung vs Apple join SOOC vs PP, MILC vs DSLR, and Canon vs Nikon as troll food, or has it?

You might consider an extensive reading of reviews, then listing particular questions you can't answer without trying roughly equivalent models yourself, then renting both for a enough time to see which characteristics you prefer.

This is the most impressive set of closeups I have ever seen. Thank you for sharing!